Loading document...
==== PAGE 1 ====
17/00330/B Page 1 of 10
PLANNING OFFICER REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS
Application No. : 17/00330/B Applicant : The Courtyard Ltd Proposal : Additional use and conversion of retail units to form two residential units for permanent and tourist use Site Address : 17 And 19 Malew Street Castletown Isle Of Man
Case Officer : Miss S E Corlett Photo Taken : 15.12.2016 Site Visit : 15.12.2016 Expected Decision Level : Planning Committee
Recommendation
Recommended Decision:
Refused Date of Recommendation: 04.10.2017 __
Reasons for Refusal
R : Reasons for Refusal O : Notes attached to reasons
R 1. The proposal, by virtue of the loss of the ground floor retail accommodation would reduce the extent of commercial floorspace available within the town and as such would dilute the interest and range of commercial operations therein, contrary to the objectives of the Government's Retail Strategy as well as Community Policy 4 of the Strategic Plan and Mixed Use Proposal 1 of the Area Plan for the South.
R 2. Whilst the principal windows in the two units have been made smaller, they will still afford opportunities for lights to shine into the properties from vehicles approaching up Bank Street and for passing pedestrians to see clearly into the properties in an area which is characterised by commercial premises where pedestrians are encouraged to window shop. As such, it is considered that the units would provide inadequate privacy and amenity space contrary to General Policy 2h and m and Housing Policy 17.
__
Interested Person Status - Additional Persons
It is recommended that the following persons should not be given Interested Person Status as they are not considered to have sufficient interest in the subject matter of the application to take part in any subsequent proceedings and are not mentioned in Article 6(4):
The owner of The Malt House which is not sufficiently close to the site for them to be directly affected by the proposal.
__
Officer’s Report
==== PAGE 2 ====
17/00330/B Page 2 of 10
THIS APPLICATION IS REFERRED TO THE PLANNING COMMITTEE DUE TO THE NATURE OF THE PROPOSALS AND THE PLANNING HISTORY OF THE SITE
This site has been the subject of a very recent application, 16/01317/B for the conversion of the application units into residential/tourist use. This application was refused and the current proposal seeks to overcome the reasons for refusal. The application was considered at a recent meeting of the Planning Committee where a decision was deferred pending clarification of the advice which Castletown Commissioners had received and which resulted in their change of stance to support the application. This has now been provided and is set out in the Representations section of the report.
THE SITE 1.1 The site is part of the wider development known as Callow's Yard in the heart of Castletown. The development involved the linking of Malew and Arbory Streets with the redevelopment and alteration of buildings creating a mix of residential, retail, offices, cafes and tourist accommodation with a pedestrian link between the two streets with a communal public area in the middle.
1.2 Since its original approval the scheme has been changed, seeing the creation of a public house/restaurant which has since been converted to residential units. The link between Malew Street and the central courtyard has not been available since the retail units at 17 and 19 have been closed for business. A toilet and storage building within the scheme and a function suite have also been the subject of successful applications for conversion to residential and tourist use.
1.3 The area of the scheme which is the subject of the current application relates to numbers 17 and 19 which front onto Malew Street and back onto the rear of the units behind which front onto the inner courtyard. It is between these two units that the pedestrian access passes to link Malew and Arbory Streets.
1.4 The units have a floor area of around 70 sq m (19 is slightly smaller than 17) and a frontage to Malew Street of around 7m each and number 17 would also have a door onto Malew Street. Unit 19 has its front door accesses from the pedestrian passageway whereas unit 17 also has an access directly onto Malew Street. The units each have a large window and a slightly smaller one, all with low cill levels, looking out onto Malew Street and no other windows.
1.5 The units are currently unoccupied and are devoid of signage. The unit at number 21 is the home of an electricity substation and has a large window to the right of the front door, the window is obscured with opaque vinyl, the glazed part of the door also. To the left of the door is a set of double doors with vents in the lower third and obscured glazing above. To the left of these is another pedestrian door.
1.6 To the north of the substation is a mixture of retail units interspersed with residential properties. Up until this point the frontages are all commercial in appearance and use.
THE PROPOSAL 2.1 Proposed is the use of the front units at 17 and 19, Malew Street as residential and/or tourist use along with physical changes to their appearance. The units would be in the form of two one bed units.
2.2 This current application includes alterations to the buildings, removing the doorway in the central pedestrian walkway and leaving an open access into the walkway through to the central courtyard and to Arbory Street beyond. Also proposed is the alteration of the frontage windows from large shop windows to smaller, vertically proportioned domestic style windows matching the width of those above. A new doorway would be introduced off Malew Street into unit 19.
==== PAGE 3 ====
17/00330/B Page 3 of 10
Within the walkway an existing doorway into unit 19 will be blocked off with a second means of access into a hall retained off the walkway into this unit. Both units will have a door onto Malew Street and one off the internal walkway.
2.3 The applicant reiterates his supporting statement from the previous application, that the town has suffered from the closure of a number of offices and large businesses, the doctor, dentist and optician and this, together with a decline in tourism, the growth of internet trading and the expansion of two fuel filling stations at the perimeter of the town have reduced the demand for commercial space in the town centre. Despite rent free honeymoons it has not been possible to let the premises. The applicant has even employed a specialist retail consultant to review the market and attract suitable businesses to the site. They consider that history demonstrates that there has been no traditional retail or successful service retail activity in this location for over 30 years and around a third of the retail units in the town have been empty for several years. Their proposed residential use is to prevail until the local authority can devise a strategy to return footfall to the town centre to create a vibrant retail environment which they wholeheartedly support.
2.4 They draw attention to other properties in Malew Street - residential properties with large windows. They clarify that the doors opening onto Malew Street will provide emergency access and will probably remain closed at all times but will reinforce the residential character of the property. They draw attention to 16, Malew Street, on the other side of Malew Street from the application property, which has large windows right onto the street.
2.5 They do not accept that the change of use of these properties will dilute the range and interest of commercial operations as one third of commercial premises in the town are currently available for rent. They consider that Government's retail strategy to attract businesses to Castletown has failed and where new businesses have been encouraged to the town, such as Costa, they have been steered to existing buildings which required a change of use, rather than directing them to the town centre. If this is to be continued, the existing landlords with available space are prejudiced and any previous investment is ignored.
2.6 They consider that they accord with Strategic Plan policy as they have endeavoured to find tenants for the units but none has materialised and without a successful and supported retail strategy to retain and attract business to the town, none will materialise. They consider that the physical changes to the building will enable any future retailers to have more internal wall space and as there are many residential properties which are affected by vehicle lights and close proximity of pedestrians so this cannot be given as a valid reason for refusal. They consider that the charm of the town is the interaction between pedestrians and residents. They do not consider that there is a prohibition to residential at ground floor in any of the policies and the interests of the town are not served by long term vacant premises. They do not consider that Government's Retail Strategy is a policy.
PLANNING POLICY 3.1 The site lies within an area designated on the Area Plan for the South adopted in 2013 as Mixed Use, reflecting the mixture of retail, offices, cafes, take-aways, residential and tourist uses which prevail in the area. Within Callow's Yard itself the complex accommodates units which have dual use as residential or tourism and retail and offices to enable easy changes between uses which are deemed acceptable and in accordance with the land use designation. The site also lies within the town's Conservation Area.
3.2 The Strategic Plan sets out standards of car parking required for different sorts of development - residential units generally require two spaces per unit and retail uses spaces for service deliveries. It also states that:
"These standards may be relaxed where development: a) would secure the re-use of a Registered Building or a building of architectural or historic interest; or b) would result in the
==== PAGE 4 ====
17/00330/B Page 4 of 10
preservation of a sensitive streetscape, or c) is otherwise of benefit to the character of a Conservation Area d) is within a reasonable distance of an existing or proposed bus route and it can be demonstrated a reduced level of parking will not result in unacceptable on street parking in the locality" (A.7.6).
3.3 Paragraph 6.1.2 describes "The majority of the retail provision in the South is within the existing settlements. Most of this is located in the Service Centres of Castletown and Port Erin both of which offer some comparison and convenience retailing." It goes on at paragraph 6.6.1 "In order to achieve town and village centres which are attractive, viable and full of vitality it is essential to encourage a mix of different uses to locate within the Mixed Use areas. This will include elements of retail, office, light industrial, community facilities, leisure and tourism uses and residential as well as dedicated public spaces which will be a focus for community activity. Uses which are not compatible with residential developments will not be supported within the Mixed Uses areas. Generally there will be a presumption in favour of changes of use between the range of approved uses. Whilst planning approval may be required for some changes, this would normally be supported subject to the buildings being suitable for the new use."
3.2 At paragraph 6.6.2 of the Plan. "Development within an area of Mixed Use (as designated on the Proposals Map/Inset Maps) or those sites proposed for Mixed Use (identified on the Maps as 'Proposed Mixed Use') will comprise a mix of some or all of the following uses: residential; shops; financial and professional services; food and drink; research and development, light industry; hotels and hostels; hospitals, nursing homes and residential institutions; community uses; leisure; tourism and open space. For applications relating to sites proposed for Mixed Use, the mix and types of uses on the site will be determined on their merits in accordance with the Proposals in the Area Plan and the Isle of Man Strategic Plan Policies.
3.3 Paragraph 6.6.5 of the Area Plan states, "In order to ensure that the vitality of the town and village centres is retained in terms of visitor attraction and activity after working hours, it is considered that retail should be the preferred use for ground floors of buildings within those areas designated for Mixed Use with residential use encouraged for the upper floors. Office use will also be acceptable on the upper floors but not at the expense of residential uses, and in certain circumstances on the lower floors.
Mixed Use Proposal 1: In order to maintain and enhance the vitality of the Mixed Use areas in Port Erin, Castletown and Ballasalla, there will be a presumption in favour of the retention of existing retail units on the ground floor although each case will be determined upon its circumstances and merits."
3.4 The Strategic Plan contains the following which is considered relevant to this application: Paragraph 9.4.5 states "It is accepted that in some circumstances a mix of uses can be appropriate within town centre locations such as residential flats above retail units or office accommodation, particularly where this can help to ensure the use of the area at different times during the day, thus helping to ensure the security and vitality of these areas." It should be clarified that where there is an apparent conflict of policy, whichever document was adopted later should carry more weight.
3.5 The Isle of Man Strategic Plan provides, at the outset, on page 9 the Strategic Aim:
To plan for the efficient and effective provision of services and infrastructure and to direct and control development and the use of land to meet the community's needs, having particular regard to the principles of sustainability whilst at the same time preserving, protecting, and improving the quality of the environment, having particular regard to our uniquely Manx natural, wildlife, cultural and built heritage.
==== PAGE 5 ====
17/00330/B Page 5 of 10
3.6 The Strategic Plan policies require that development makes the best use of resources by utilising under-used land and buildings (Strategic Policy 1); that new development be located primarily within our existing towns and villages (Strategic Policy 2); proposals should protect or enhance the fabric and setting of Ancient Monuments and Conservation Areas (Strategic Policy 4); all new retail development must be sited within town and village centres (Strategic Policy 9); and favourable consideration will be given to proposals for improving the quality and condition of the existing housing stock and for the creation of flats by conversion of vacant and under-used space above commercial premises (Strategic Policy 12). It also requires that developments provide satisfactory amenity standards in itself and takes account of community and personal safety and security in the design of buildings and the spaces around them (General Policy 2h and 2m).
3.7 Spatial Policy 2 identifies Castletown as a Service Centre that should provide regeneration and choice of location for housing, employment and services.
3.8 Environment Policy 35 seeks to ensure that in Conservation Areas only development that would preserve or enhance the character of appearance of the area will be permitted.
3.9 Environment Policy 43 supports proposals which seek to regenerate run-down area. Such proposals will normally be set in the context of regeneration strategies identified in Area Plans. The Department will encourage the re-use of sound built fabric rather than demolition.
3.10 Housing Policy 17 provides guidance on the provision of apartments: The conversion of buildings into flats will generally be permitted in residential areas provided that:
(a) adequate space can be provided for clothes-drying, refuse storage, general amenity, and, if practical, car-parking; (b) the flats created will have a pleasant clear outlook, particularly from the principal rooms and (c) if possible, this involves the creation of parking on site or as part of an overall traffic management strategy for the area.
3.11 Community Policy 4 states that: 'Development (including the change of use of existing premises) which involves the loss of local shops and local public houses, will only be permitted if it can be demonstrated that the use is no longer commercially viable, or cannot be made commercially viable.' The preceding text sets out 'The loss of facilities such as neighbourhood shops in towns and or village shops and public houses reduces customer choice and can also necessitate people travelling further to meet their needs. This is a particular problem in rural areas where village shops, post offices and public houses can be central to village life. It would be preferable to retain viable facilities, or those that can be made viable and where a change of use or re-development is proposed developers will be expected to show evidence of attempts to market the property as a business in these areas.'
3.12 Transport Policy 7 requires all new development to provide parking in accordance with the Department's Standards, set out in Appendix 7 of the Strategic Plan. These parking standards can be reduced or set aside in sustainable locations or in Conservation Areas, as appropriate.
3.13 Paragraph 9.5.8 states, "The use of existing private residential properties as tourist accommodation may be acceptable if it can be demonstrated that it will not compromise the amenities of any neighbouring residents." Business Policy 13 states: "Permission will generally be given for the use of private residential properties as tourist accommodation providing that it can be demonstrated that such use would not compromise the amenities of neighbouring residents."
3.14 It is also relevant to have regard to Government's Retail Sector Strategy, developed by Department of Economic Development and published in 2013 although it acknowledges at
==== PAGE 6 ====
17/00330/B Page 6 of 10
paragraph 1.11 "While any future review of planning policy via the Strategic or Area Plans will have regard to the contents of this Retail Sector Strategy, it is noted that formulation of planning policy or land allocations must follow the procedures laid out in planning legislation. i.e. be based on a robust evidence base, be subject to formal public consultation and be capable of withstanding scrutiny and examination at a Planning Inquiry held by an independent Planning Inspector." The core aim of the strategy is "To promote competitive and accessible retail and leisure environments in our town centres, which offer choice and convenience for consumers, improve the economy and enhance resident's quality of life". It goes on, "Retailing is the central activity in the Isle of Man's town centres and a key component of the economy. The clear majority recommendation from the Retail Committee was for continuation of a town centre focussed approach. Future reviews of the Isle of Man Strategic Plan, Area Plans and other documentation should consider how to address this aspiration. Developing high quality town centre retail and leisure environments, making sure suitable sites and premises are available in them and that they are served by good transport and parking facilities will be the physical platform for a re-energised retail sector. While Douglas is the Island's main centre, Ramsey, Peel, Port Erin, Castletown, Onchan and other centres all play important and complementary roles which should be encouraged."
3.15 The Strategy recommends that, "The commitment of centre traders and businesses is essential to protect and enhance the quality of town centre environments. Their involvement in developing appropriate maintenance regimes (e.g. control of litter and paved areas) and measures to improve the quality of retail frontages will be encouraged" and "3.41 Unused sites and premises can affect the quality and appeal of town centre retail and leisure environments. Existing legislation and other measures should be strengthened to encourage owners or tenants to improve them through effective enforcement actions and timely processes."
PLANNING HISTORY 4.1 The site as a whole has been the subject of a number of applications, the most recent of which have sought to increase the number of residential units, with concerns raised about the amount of car parking provided, the impact of changes to some frontages and the acceptability of so many units of this size within the town centre. The most useful decision in this respect is in respect of PA 14/00338/B which was approved at appeal following a refusal by the Planning Committee and recommendation for approval by the inspector which was finally accepted by the Minister, following an earlier refusal by another acting Minister whose decision was successfully challenged in the courts, quashed and referred back to the Department.
4.2 This application is not identical to the previous application as it concerned largely the upper floors of the complex with a single proposal for change of a stairwell at ground floor level to facilitate the living accommodation above with alterations to the frontage which lost the shopfront and replaced it with a residential frontage with smaller windows and a door. The inspector notes at his paragraph 74 that, "8 Arbory Street is not a shop and its function as a stairwell is clearly apparent to passers-by. Its ground floor does, however, at least have the outward appearance of a retail frontage, which is appropriate to its location on this pedestrianised shopping street. From townscape and retailing perspectives, the application would have been that bit better had the ground floor of these premises converted to retail use."
4.3 The gist of the main objection from the acting Minister was that there was inadequate car parking for the development which would have resulted in inconvenience to the neighbourhood. Whilst there was some disagreement between the parties, the inspector and the acting Minister on the number of spaces required, the final determination was that the number of spaces should be lowered to account for the applicant's evidence from assessing the car parking requirement for those who actually live within the complex, fewer than normal having their own vehicles and, also considering the parking survey commissioned by Department of Infrastructure which concluded that if that Department and Castletown Commissioners continue to improve the management of the spaces within the town then the
==== PAGE 7 ====
17/00330/B Page 7 of 10
number of spaces which could be available would suffice, and that as such what was proposed was acceptable from a car parking and highway perspective.
REPRESENTATIONS 5.1 Castletown Commissioners initially objected to the application on the basis that all ground floor premises currently designated as retail should remain as such and they suggest that there are encouraging signs of investment in the historic centre of the town and the conversion from retail space to residential at this juncture is considered a retrograde step (06.12.16). However, on 19th September, 2017 they reversed their position, advising that following extensive discussions with the applicant and professional advice being taken with regard to the future of retail and the potential benefits of shortening the retail streetscape they wish to withdraw their earlier objection to the application and now support the application. They clarify that this decision was taken with specific reference to this application and is not a more general stance on a wider change in policy with regard to the conversion of retail policies.
5.2 The advice that was received by the Commissioners has been summarised by them as follows:
The advice was received from Martin Sewell who has previously provided advice to Government on retail strategies and has provided consultancy for M&S WHS, Boots, House of Frazer, B&Q, J Sainsbury, Tesco, Carrefour and around 200 more household names, as well as helping individual retailers in small towns survive.
"Here's the information I supplied, and is, I believe, a widely held view as Retailing activity shrinks in number of transactions physically undertaken on the 'High Street'. Strip Retailing (Long length high streets) has given way to covered Malls supported by an adjacent car park and a consolidation of retailers into a more compact 'user friendly 'area.
Evidence shows in Douglas where the 'centre' of the high street is around M&S and is a more sparsely shopped area on the 'Chrystals' side of the intersecting road at one end, and the 'rarefied area' beyond Butler's Choice at the other.
Port Erin however has 'survived' for longer, where the shopping area is in a neater square and easily accessible.
It follows that vacant property in Castletown at the 'end 'of the current vacant area will remain the least attractive to any retail entrant to the locality, and any amount of rent discounting may be fruitless in comparison with vacant property nearer the square. It may be different if would- be retailers were falling over themselves, paying premiums to be in Castletown, but with so many vacant locations and so few existing shoppers this situation is unlikely for some long time to come.
It may even be argued that a well kept occupied residential property creates a far better impression to a consumer entering Castletown, than an empty shop with a 'for rent' sign in it, or even worse; one that is boarded up awaiting its fate!"
5.3 The owner of The Malt House objects to the application as he believes this part of the town should remain retail on the ground floor and that new retail outlets are being started and that the site is on a tricky corner where there is no space for parking or even stopping temporarily and it isn't clear whether the proposal is for permanent residential or tourist uses which are contradictory (27.04.17).
5.4 Highway Services advise that the proposal is to add tourist use to a residential dwelling. The existing access and parking arrangements will not be altered and there is no additional parking required. Highway Services do not oppose this application (24.05.17).
==== PAGE 8 ====
17/00330/B Page 8 of 10
ASSESSMENT 6.1 The areas of potential concern relate to the possible impact of the changes on car parking, the impact of the use and changes to the building on the character and appearance of the area, the loss of commercial units and finally whether the proposal would provide satisfactory living conditions for those in the new units.
Car parking 6.2 The units have no parking provision on site whatever their proposed use. Whilst deliveries to the commercial units could happen on street, a similar arrangement could not occur for residential vehicles which would require longer term and more frequent parking provision. The issue of parking in the town has been well covered in previous applications with the conclusion that with better management, the town will have sufficient provision in the future. It is not considered that two additional single bedroomed units will add significantly to the current or future demand and as such it is not considered that the application should be refused for this reason.
The impact of the proposed use on the character and appearance of the area 6.3 The units are now to be physically changed, replacing the large shop windows with smaller, domestic scale fenestration and this is, understandably to address concerns raised in the previous application about the acceptability of large scale windows for a residential unit. Whilst not objectionable in themselves, the change from commercial scale windows in this location will change the character of the buildings from commercial at ground floor to residential, reinforcing the more subtle changes to the windows which will belie the residential rather than commercial uses within - for example curtains and ornaments being within the windows alongside the street and the pedestrian walkway through the units rather than items for sale and signage. This is apparent further down Malew Street where residential properties are intermixed with commercial. This visible change will visually and perhaps effectively shorten the commercial area of the town and perhaps even dissuade people from using the walkway through into the central area and on to Arbory Street and venturing further down Malew Street where there are still a few commercial premises.
The loss of commercial units 6.4 The area is designated as mixed use which describes a variety of uses. In the centre of the town, including the application units and those immediately opposite and alongside, the predominant ground floor use is commercial, whether this be a café, take-away, shop, office, estate agent or bank. The variety adds to the attractiveness of the town as a place to visit. Reducing the number of commercial units will dilute this range and particularly here, will visually reduce the commercial area, to the detriment of its vitality. Whilst the Commissioners have sought additional advice about the future of retail and the benefits of shortening the retail streetscape, it is not know from whom that advice was provided and in what context. As such, it is difficult to give significant weight to this as evidence, other than the Commissioners' change of stance and taking into account their knowledge and experience of the town.
6.5 It is clear from Mixed Use Policy 1 of the Area Plan that commercial uses are preferred on the ground floor. Whilst it is fully accepted that the units are not currently used and that previous attempts to secure a particular commercial user were thwarted by an unsuccessful application for an alcohol licence for the premises, premises can be vacant for a number of reasons. Costa Coffee has recently come to the town but chose to create premises from a Registered Building slightly outwith the main retail square rather than moving to within one of the commercial units available within the town. This demonstrates that the town in general is somewhere where operators will choose to locate even if this takes considerable care and effort, not to mention financial investment to create the premises. The applicant cites reasons why they think people do not wish to locate here - the expansion of the two petrol stations at the periphery of the town, with withdrawal from the town of the doctor and dentist's businesses (although there is a dental surgery now at 12, Malew Street), the withdrawal from the town of a number of major businesses, the lack of pedestrianisation of Malew Street past
==== PAGE 9 ====
17/00330/B Page 9 of 10
its junction with Bank Street and despite appointing an on and off Island retail specialist agent and advertising the premises.
6.6 Whilst the advice provided to Castletown Commissioners indicates that vacant shops potentially have a worse impact on a retail area that an occupied dwelling, this presupposes that the shop units are presented as empty shops whereas their lack of occupancy could be disguised through the application of vinyls or murals which could add to the interest of the streetscene whilst remaining available to those who may wish to rent them. It is also the case that the units could be used for other commercial purposes which would attract life to the town
6.7 The advice also suggests that the town could benefit from the concentration of shop units to a geographically smaller area and this principle is not disputed. However, where the extent of that retail space should be should not be assessed on the basis of a single application and should be properly assessed with consideration of the rest of the town rather than on an ad hoc basis.
Satisfactory living conditions 6.8 The premises would have no windows which do not look directly onto space which is frequented by the passing public. The windows looking onto Malew Street, particularly that of number 17, would have the headlights of vehicles approaching up Bank Street and then turning north shining directly towards them and this will still be an issue, despite the windows being made smaller from the previous application. Whilst the units directly behind are subject to similar proximity to pedestrian traffic, the central area is less overtly commercial and it is much less likely that pedestrians will walk right past their front windows as is the case with the Malew Street windows which are part of a commercial row of frontages which potential shoppers are encouraged to look into. Similarly, whilst there are residential properties further up Malew Street and indeed Arbory Street, these are mainly within areas of predominantly residential use where people are not likely to peer into people's windows when they pass as they are within the main shopping area. These properties mainly, if not exclusively, also have private space and outlook to their rear.
CONCLUSION 7.1 Whilst there is considerable sympathy with the applicant's position of having a number of vacant premises within the complex which he would prefer to be occupied rather than vacant, the use of these units which front onto Malew Street as residential will have a significant and adverse impact on the attractiveness and vitality of Castletown as a place for people to shop and visit. The appearance of residential units here will discourage visitors from thinking that they are still within the town centre where there are shops, cafes and facilities available and the commercial area will reduce, resulting in fewer commercial units for those interested in investing or operating here, to consider. The proposal is contrary to the objectives of the Government's Retail Strategy as well as Community Policy 4 of the Strategic Plan and Mixed Use Proposal 1 of the Area Plan for the South and as such the application is recommended for refusal.
INTERESTED PERSON STATUS 8.1 By virtue of the Town and Country Planning (Development Procedure) (No 2) Order 2013 (Article 6(4), the following persons are automatically interested persons: (a) The applicant, or if there is one, the applicant's agent; (b) The owner and the occupier of any land that is the subject of the application or any other person in whose interest the land becomes vested; (c) Any Government Department that has made written submissions relating to planning considerations with respect to the application that the Department considers material (d) Highway Services Division of Department of Infrastructure and (e) The local authority in whose district the land the subject of the application is situated.
==== PAGE 10 ====
17/00330/B Page 10 of 10
8.2 The decision-maker must determine:
I confirm that this decision has been made by the Planning Committee in accordance with the authority afforded to it under the appropriate delegated authority.
Decision Made : Refused
Committee Meeting Date: 16.10.2017
Signed : S BUTLER Presenting Officer
Further to the decision of the Committee an additional report/condition reason was required (included as supplemental paragraph to the officer report).
Signatory to delete as appropriate YES/NO See below
Customer note
This copy of the officer report reflects the content of the file copy and has been produced in this form for the benefit of our online services/customers and archive records.
Copyright in submitted documents remains with their authors. Request removal